It has nothing to do with whether the Holocaust story is true or false. Plays absolutely no role.

Debating its merits is more detrimental to the revisionist position than it does to advance the revisionist position.

It's about a little girl. It could all very well be true in a feasible sense. It's embedded in the world's psyche.

The only value there might be to questioning the diary is to show how readily the Holocaust community will forge something but we have plenty of that already relating directly to the Holocaust nonsense.

Discussing it adds ammo to the Holocaust community's handle for revisionism - "deniers". With that word it's supposed to carry the vernacular understanding that revisionists deny everything. 'Look, they even doubt the Diary of Anne Frank.'

We have nothing to gain from questioning the 'Diary of Anne Frank' and a lot more to lose.

I'm one of the few people who have never read the diary or seen any of the films or plays based on it. Does it actually include events that revisionists disagree with or is it just a day to day account of life?

Richard Perle wrote:I'm one of the few people who have never read the diary or seen any of the films or plays based on it. Does it actually include events that revisionists disagree with or is it just a day to day account of life?

I would say it's a day to day account of life.
She speaks of gassings, but the rumour existed (the BBC had mentioned gassings).

Now, as many authors (principally Faurisson) I think the authenticity is doubtful (I explain this in the thread "Anne Frank's Diary. Providential proofs of authenticity"). And if revisionists don't say it, nobody will say it.

I disagree with TMoran for the following reasons. The diary was a big deal in 5th or 6th grade in my class. That is 10 or 11 years old. Never too young to start the indoctrination! The premise for a little kid is "they hid because the Nazis wanted to take them and kill them." Around the same time a movie called "The Hiding Place" was playing in the theaters. A movie that had scenes of the main characters being in Auschwitz: they were in Auschwitz because they had been caught hiding Jews. I think in 6th grade to top it off, I even read "The Hiding Place" the book. There was stuff every year like that growing up.

Part of what we talk about in revisionism is what the masses are told. That gives the the holocaust works a different angle. Thus Hilberg's 1961 version and his 1985 version of Destruction of European Jews, are maybe more important than the 2003 edition. Similarly, the 70's series World at War episode 20 is just as important as the recent Auschwitz documentary.

I would agree with TMoran, if there wasn't much to discredit the diary. Then it would certainly look like revisionists are a bunch of naysayers. But there's a reason Robert Faurisson chose to spend a lot of energy on looking at this diary.

The biggest problem, is that it's difficult to describe the fraud. If one writes an article that says, "according to NIOD....but in the book it says...." it just doesn't pack a wallup (make a big impression) on the reader. This is because the medium of "text" just isn't so effective in describing the descrepancies in another text.

What would be 10 times more effective is internet video.

Using the Apple Macintosh program imovie, and using a digital camera and maybe digital video would work extremely well. In that sense one would use a picture of a page of text, bring it into Adobe Photoshop and highlight the text on that page that you want the viewer to notice, then import this graphic into imovie, drag it for as long as you want the image shown in the construction window of the program, and put in your voice comments over it. So the viewer could look at the text, in a photo, and hear what you have to say. Then the next scene could be a photo of a different page and the same thing going on.

As Marshall McLuhan said "the medium is the message." What he meant is that sometimes the medium itself is more important regarding the effectiveness of the message you are trying to get across. When television came out in the 50's and changed America, it didn't have much to do with new content. The content was similar to what had been in the newspapers, novels, movies etc. The new medium of television is was what changed things.

In this sense one could make a good internet video about the diary of Anne Frank, and say no more than what Faurisson said 30 years ago, but because the medium is so much more effective, it could be a ground-breaking work.

I understand Tom Moran's point to a certain degree, but disagree with his view that we should leave the Anne Frank fraud alone.

It is important there be no sacred cows for Revisionists, the diary is a scam and it has been shown as such. If we leave alone all the touchy feely things that the marketers of the scam use, then we would necessarily back off from a huge portion of the lying 'eyewitness-survivor' crocodile tears stories. We do not and should not.

I say go after them all. Showing the fraudulent nature of the Anne Frank 'diary' opens the window for many other opportunities. "If that's bogus, then what else is?" ... is the logical reaction.

Unfortunately, I do not have the date of this. It is from Idaho Daily Statesman. Circa 1962

Remember Anne Frank.

"A young Jewish girl whose diary stirred millions around the world was remembered last week in a simple ceremony in Amsterdam, marking the 20th Anniversary of her arrest by the Nazis. The Story of Anne Frank still causes free-thinking people to meditate on the ways of the world, the insane men hungry for power. Remember? From the time she was 12 until before her death at 14 in a Nazi concentration camp, Anne lived with her parents, a sister and four other Jewish persons in one room concealed in the back of a house in Amsterdam.All but Anne's father perished in the concentration camp. Upon his liberation he returned to Amsterdam and found his daughter's famous diary. This youngster always had hopes of the future, but she was denied the right to live. She was a Jew."

And you say that it has nothing to do with whether or not the holocaust story is true or false. Nor does Dresden, so don't look at that. And so on.

The fact is that the holocaust supporters, in my experience, seem always to use Anne Frank's diary as the first peg of the whole fabrication.

"Look at those evil Nazis. They even took a little, innocent 12 year old girl and did her to death!" That was my introduction when I was in my early twenties. My kids, when they were at school, got the same story. After that came the indoctrination by English teachers who tried to then justify Dresden et al. And then my own country. And now Iraq. Evil must be stamped out by us good guys. And if you won't do as we tell you, then we will just kill you, or you could become like the Nazis. Or the Red Indians. Or the San. It's for your own good.

I'm in two minds about the Anne Frank 'diary'. On the one hand, it has nothing to do with the myth of homicidal 'gas chambers' (indeed it counters the gas chamber claims in that the Franks went through Auschwitz and back again only to die of Typhus); on the other hand, as Carto's Cutlass rightly argues, it has become an iconic 'introduction' to the 'holocaust' story for young and impressionable children - the strategy being that if they swallow that little dose, the rest will easily follow.

I don't care and it doesn't interest me. Can i give everyone a piece of advice? I often ignore it myself, but my advice is, don't get too far away from the gas chambers. Nobody cares about anything else.

I would guess that 9 out of 10 people believe Anne Frank was gassed. Most accounts in the press simply state that she 'died in a Nazi concentration camp', with 'gassed' implied.

I do agree, and have always thought so, that the 'gas chambers' are the biggies, along with the distorted Einsatzgruppen shooting claims. But as Germar Rudolf calls it, 'salami Revisionism'. Piece by piece we are tearing down the scam. I feel that the Anne Frank story is just another piece.

Hannover wrote:I would guess that 9 out of 10 people believe Anne Frank was gassed. Most accounts in the press simply state that she 'died in a Nazi concentration camp', with 'gassed' implied.

You are reading my mind, Hannover. When I first started reading this thread, I recalled an article I copied down for my work-in-progress some time back about this, where are journalist actually went beyond the implication that Anne Frank was 'gassed':

In July this year [1996], schools visiting an Anne Frank exhibition at Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire, were sent documents which claimed that her diaries were a “literary hoax” and she had actually died of typhus, not from being gassed by the Nazis.

I don't care and it doesn't interest me. Can i give everyone a piece of advice? I often ignore it myself, but my advice is, don't get too far away from the gas chambers. Nobody cares about anything else.

Shame. Yes concentrate on the gas chambers - they are there to conceal the truth about the reasons for the holocaust industry. Concentrate on them and you'll never get to see the truth until too late.

I've been studying this lot for 40 years now. The Gas Chambers are old hat. If you spend so much time on them and exclude the overall picture, then you are doing a disservice to the real victims - today's youth and the future citizens of the Western World. Adios.

Concentrate on them and you'll never get to see the truth until too late.

I don't see how that makes any sense at all, nor do I see how it's shameful. As Haldan mentions, he sometimes doesn't take that advice himself. Were a person to focus on the gas chambers and convince someone that they didn't exist, then everything falls like dominos anyway. One might even say that it's the domino that starts the other dominos falling.

Often I will challenge people to name one jew who was gassed by nazis. The most common answer? Anne Frank.

Even though she was deported out of "extermination camp" Auschwitz, to Bergen Belsen where she died of typhus. This was not a deliberate attempt to kill by the Nazis, although in many people's minds, it was!

If the British did not declare war on Germany, or accepted one of the numerous peace proposals, Anne Frank would possibly be alive today.

Ultimately Anne Frank's story is inconsistent with the mainstream "Holocaust" narrative and supports the revisionists' position.

"There is a principal which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principal is contempt prior to investigation." -- Herbert Spencer